The Hague Court of Appeal dismisses CBvS and Commerzbank’s appeal against seizure of €19.5 million

[ad_1]

The Hague Court of Appeal has not yet lifted the criminal seizure of €19.5 million in cash from Suriname that was made at Schiphol Airport in April 2018.

The Hague Court made this ruling today after the case was referred to it by the Supreme Court, which you can read on Rechtspraak.nl.

The Central Bank of Suriname (CBvS) together with three Surinamese commercial banks initiated legal proceedings against the seized funds. The North Holland District Court and the Amsterdam Court of Appeal had previously heard the case.

The Public Prosecutor’s Office (OM) appealed these decisions to the Supreme Court. In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that the previous judgment could not be upheld and referred the case to the Court of Appeal in The Hague for reassessment.

In their complaint, CBvS and Commercial Bank said the seizure violated customary international law. They argued that CBvS, as an organ of the state in Suriname and a transmitter of funds, was entitled to immunity from criminal seizure.

However, the Hague Court ruled that CBvS could not claim immunity because the seized funds were not its property but the property of the three major commercial banks. CBvS only played a facilitating role in the transportation of money.

Furthermore, the CBvS and the bank demanded the return of the money, since, according to them, it was highly unlikely that the criminal court would subsequently confiscate it.

The money remains seized as the Public Prosecution Service plans to request confiscation from the Criminal Court in the substantive criminal case.

CBvS and the banks noted that despite the seizure taking place more than six years ago, no criminal proceedings have been initiated in the Netherlands.

The Court stressed that the assessment in such complaint proceedings, where the investigation is still ongoing, is essentially summative in nature and should take into account currently available information without prejudging future decisions in the criminal case.

At a hearing in The Hague, the prosecutor’s office announced that it had decided to prosecute Commercial Bank for suspected money laundering.

Representatives of the commercial bank have been invited to be questioned and the provisional final documents of the money laundering investigation have been published. In view of this situation, it is not unlikely that the court will rule that the criminal court will subsequently confiscate the money.

The Court held that the continued seizure of the money did not conflict with proportionality or subsidiarity. The complaint was therefore declared unfounded.